Feinstein: “Morally correct” to force taxpayers to fund abortions

posted at 3:35 pm on December 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

I guess the Hyde Amendment that Congress has passed every single year for decades must have been immoral, in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s view. CNS News asks Feinstein about the morality of imposing the costs of abortions on people who object to them, and Feinstein replies with a couple of non-sequiturs you’ll be hearing over the remaining debate on ObamaCare:

As the Senate was debating the Nelson amendment Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Feinstein: “Is it morally right to use tax dollars from pro-life Americans to cover insurance plans that cover abortion?”

Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her.”

CNSNews.com asked: “So it’s morally right for pro-life taxpayers to have to help pay for plans that cover abortion?”

Feinstein responded: “Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well.”

There are a couple of problems with Feinstein’s argument, not the least of which is that the Hyde Amendment, the Stupak Amendment, and the Nelson-Casey Amendment all made exceptions for rape, incest, and a threat to the mother’s life. Furthermore, the other potential “tragic circumstances” all have to do with choices the mother made, whether married or unmarried. And none of these pieces of legislation have to do with outlawing abortion altogether, but instead put the responsibility for funding said abortions on the person who wants one.

Feinstein does have one thing correct; tax dollars go to a lot of things that taxpayers may find objectionable, whether that’s the war in Afghanistan to studies on the effect of alcohol on young adults. However, this is also a non-sequitur in that people may find some public policy objectionable, but that’s not the same thing as subsidizing the personal choices of individuals. Besides, Feinstein’s statement is really an argument for more limited government, however, not an argument that supports promiscuous spending by elected officials.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

and yet, no Christmas in schools…..the hypocrisy is shining bright this year….

alexraye on December 9, 2009 at 3:37 PM

I feel sick.

margategop517 on December 9, 2009 at 3:38 PM

If she wants to understand the morality of abortion, have her office call Dr. Polhaska.

JohnTant on December 9, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is.

Hey, that’s news to me – I didn’t think the Statists had morals.

Juno77 on December 9, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Future Feinstein headline: “Morally Correct” to force women to undergo abortions and forced sterilization.

Incrementalism I tell you.

That aside: “Morally Correct” to tell Feinstein to piss up a rope.

See how easy it is to make statements of morality without offering premises to back it up?

Holger on December 9, 2009 at 3:38 PM

The only question is which California Hag is the worst, Boxer or Feinstein? Boxer usually leads but, with remarks like this, Feinstein is certainly a close second,

MaiDee on December 9, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Sure, as long as we can initiate hers retroactively.

Dukehoopsfan on December 9, 2009 at 3:39 PM

The Age of Obama:

Pay for your neighbors insulation, home weatherization, abortion, car…

Joe Caps on December 9, 2009 at 3:39 PM

I would find it “morally correct” to see Feinstein removed from office, along with her fellow travelers in Congress and Osama Obama’s regime.

MrScribbler on December 9, 2009 at 3:40 PM

Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb, her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health. I think she ought to have a policy available to her.”

In this day and age I’ve never heard of a pregnancy being so dangerous to the mother that it required killing the baby. Is there something I’m missing?

darwin on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Maybe China wants to buy California.

Bishop on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Feinstein has always been an absolutist on abortion. She has received huge contributions from Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion special interests over the years. But she is also just representing her state on this.

rockmom on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Feinstein does have one thing correct; tax dollars go to a lot of things that taxpayers may find objectionable

Thomas Jefferson:

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

WashJeff on December 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I’m pretty sure I’m “subsidizing the personal choice of an individual” who decides to join our 100% volunteer armed forces.

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Hey, that’s news to me – I didn’t think the Statists had morals.

Juno77 on December 9, 2009 at 3:38 PM

]

They do. They are bought and sold extremely easy.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Military expenditures are at least covered in the Constitution. If they would try to stick to that we would all be happier.

Cindy Munford on December 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM

In this day and age I’ve never heard of a pregnancy being so dangerous to the mother that it required killing the baby. Is there something I’m missing?

darwin on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Eclampsia.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Dianne Feinstein – The poster child for taxpayer funded abortion. Works for me.

LibTired on December 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Joe Caps on December 9, 2009 at 3:39 PM

mortgage, health care, electricity, heating, water, gasoline, groceries, prostitutes, Chopadickoffofme, Addadicktome, cosmetic surgery, birth control, tires, engine oil, anti-freeze, pet food, vet bills, pet pampering, college tuition, college dormitory, college meal plan…

Socialism is great I tell you. All the free stuff you want and everyone else is stuck for the bill! /Obama voter

Holger on December 9, 2009 at 3:44 PM

It’s morally correct for me to punch her out.

SouthernGent on December 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Is there anybody left in that party whose every utterance isn’t either baseless, deceptive or sickening?

rrpjr on December 9, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Doe v Bolton stretched “health of the mother” to include mental stress and financial hardship.

This is why I don’t mind the Religious Right “imposing” its own morality on government– I don’t have to pay out of pocket for what Henry Hyde thought was morally right, and offered as morally right, and a majority of Congress agreed with.

Chris_Balsz on December 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Classic over-reach. The dems take positions on highly divisive issues like they will be in power forever.

Oh wait…

booter on December 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM

And THIS is why we have Separation of Church and State.

Skywise on December 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Eclampsia.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Nope. Wrong. Eclampsia is a potentially life threatening pregnancy related illness. But in no way does eclampsia require an abortion at the first onset of symptoms.

Holger on December 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM

I can see the bumper sticker, now. “Honk if I am paying for your abortion.”

mwdiver on December 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Is there anybody left in that party whose every utterance isn’t either baseless, deceptive or sickening?

rrpjr on December 9, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Yeah, Joe Lieberman–oops, my bad, he left.

MaiDee on December 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Pay attention, boys and girls. This is one of the people who feel like they know what’s better for you and the living of your life than you do.

kingsjester on December 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Every penny should be extracted from her net worth to fund it.

marklmail on December 9, 2009 at 3:51 PM

Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is. Abortion Breast Augmentation is legal, and there (are) certain very tragic circumstances that a woman finds herself in. Married, with an unborn baby that’s unable to survive outside of the womb flat chested, A-cup, or even worse unbalanced, (symmetry is beauty after all) her doctor tells her it’s a threat to her health happiness. I think she ought to have a policy available to her.”

Because its legal, you should… in fact MUST pay for it. Right? I think there are even fewer opponents of breast augmentation; so this is a brilliant policy and should be wildly popular.

/If I needed a sarc tag I would have added one. But this will be my greatest legendary achievement. Breast augmentation for all, and huge tracks of land for every peasant. This will be awesome.

// No, still not adding a sarc tag. Not until Feinstein starts adding one to her idiotic drivel.

gekkobear on December 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Does this morally vaccuous witch realy want to advocate murdering innocent people for political(votes) reasons? She really doesn’t want to go where that same thinking can be used by both sides, does she? These people will say anything without shame, which they lost when they threw God out of their lives.

Don L on December 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM

New Lib T-shirt: “My daddy just paid his taxes and all I got was this lousy abortion.”

mwdiver on December 9, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Yeah, Joe Lieberman–oops, my bad, he left.

MaiDee on December 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM

I keep hearing about JL’s religion and morality and how it guides him. Strange, he sided with the abortion-mill Democrats when it came to shelving (pun absolutely intended) the abortion amendment yesterday.

ConservativeTony on December 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM

ConservativeTony on December 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM

About the only thing Lieberman supports the conservatives on is the war.

mwdiver on December 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM

In this day and age I’ve never heard of a pregnancy being so dangerous to the mother that it required killing the baby. Is there something I’m missing?

darwin on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Ectopic pregnancy

katiejane on December 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM

In this day and age I’ve never heard of a pregnancy being so dangerous to the mother that it required killing the baby. Is there something I’m missing?

darwin on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

I know there are a few, but they are exceedingly rare. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is if the woman is pregnant and is diagnosed with cancer – she will often have to make the choice of forgoing chemo/radiation to save the baby (and quite possibly die in the process), or to treat her cancer while terminating the pregnancy. Not a choice I ever want to have to make myself (I’m pro-life), as I already have kids who need their mother. I’m fairly certain this is quite rare too, however.

Anna on December 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I thought we couldn’t legislate morality.

Know It All on December 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM

I think the state of California and all of its products should be boycotted until they get rid of their two oxygen wasting gas bag senators.

belad on December 9, 2009 at 4:01 PM

About the only thing Lieberman supports the conservatives on is the war.

mwdiver on December 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM

He also supports having Republicans pay for his re-election.

ConservativeTony on December 9, 2009 at 4:01 PM

Ectopic pregnancy

katiejane on December 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM

That too. That’s a horrible situation all around – and I don’t know of anyone who has been able to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term. Quite fatal.

Anna on December 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Feinstein said: “Is it morally correct? Yes, I believe it is.

would it be possible to have late term then as well. I think You would be the perfect candidate.

upinak on December 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Besides, Feinstein’s statement is really an argument for more limited government

Exact-a-mundo, as Fonzie used to say.

UltimateBob on December 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM

I keep hearing about JL’s religion and morality and how it guides him. Strange, he sided with the abortion-mill Democrats when it came to shelving (pun absolutely intended) the abortion amendment yesterday.

Joe is, and always was, a professional hypocrite who will say and do whatever gets him the attention he wants. He wrung his hands like Pontius Pilate years ago in CT about the evils of abortion, then he coldly voted for it – not to mention the mach 10 speed at which he threw all his make believe “conservative” principles under the bus when Red and Green Al Gore tapped him for VP.

He’s an orthodox Jew and is consistent in defending Israel, but that shouldn’t be a reason to assume he’s anything but a “look at me I’m a fence-sitting liberal, er conservative, er liberal, er conser….”

Don L on December 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Would it be morally correct to fund her opposition?

ConservativeTony on December 9, 2009 at 4:05 PM

“Puh-leeze!”

davidk on December 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Having an abortion does not make you unpregnant, it just makes you the mother of a dead baby.

Ris4victory on December 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 9, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Good.

upinak on December 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Ectopic pregnancy

katiejane on December 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Ectopic Pregnancy goes without saying. It is the only time the Catholic Church considers abortion a morally justifiable decision.

Holger on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Eclampsia? I guess my 36 year old son should have been aborted then. That will be news to him.

sandee on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

I don’t know about the rest of you guys but I am sure thankful my Mom was “morally incorrect” and gave birth to me. Can’t people see the difference in the compassion of Sarah Palin and these liberals that think that killing a child is moral? Get out!

Herb on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

If all these progressives are so concerned about the multitude of “poor” women who need abortions but can’t afford them, why don’t they form a charity for it and contribute their own money?

Logic on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

And Justice Ginsberg once said that abortion was designed to rid society of undesirables.

tarpon on December 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I’ve had an ectopic prgnancy that had to be terminated for my safety, but that would have been allowed– and funded– just fine under the amendments to restrict abortion rights. That Feinstein would try to present that situation as a cover story for abortion on demand is disgusting and completely offensive. Typical liberalogic.

RachDubya on December 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM

If they want federal money to support abortions, then they need to repeal the Hyde Amendment, or simply let it lapse and not re-vote it into being. Otherwise, it is illegal and unconstitutional to do abortions with federal money. Simply pretending the Hyde Amendment doesn’t exist does not work.

Enoxo on December 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Ectopic Pregnancy goes without saying. It is the only time the Catholic Church considers abortion a morally justifiable decision…. Holger on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

First time I heard that. Needs checking cause I don’t believe it.

Herb on December 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Ectopic Pregnancy goes without saying. It is the only time the Catholic Church considers abortion a morally justifiable decision.

Holger on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

That is because it is not really an abortion.

By the time you realize you have something seriously wrong, you have one and a half hours to go under, into surgury and take both the baby as well as the tube.

Usually the baby has died by then as the placenta is not attached usually to anything so it isn’t an abortion and you are bleeding to death internally.

upinak on December 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM

In this day and age I’ve never heard of a pregnancy being so dangerous to the mother that it required killing the baby. Is there something I’m missing?

darwin on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Eclampsia.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on December 9, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Had eclampsia with 2 pregnancies. Abortion was not recommended with either one. In fact those babies are now age 20 and 19 and as their proud mother I can say they are 2 quite beautiful young ladies. I also had previa with my 2nd son and was exposed to fifths disease in my first trimester with him. It was strongly recommended by physicians that I not carry through with the pregnancy. He turned 15 yrs old yesterday. Hes strong, smart and has wanted to join the military since he was 5 yrs old– the spitting image of his father. Even when abortion is medically recommended it may not be necessary. My children are living proof of that.

canditaylor68 on December 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM

If all these progressives are so concerned about the multitude of “poor” women who need abortions but can’t afford them, why don’t they form a charity for it and contribute their own money?

Logic on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Liberals/progressives are always concerned about the down trodden and will spend what ever it takes to remedy the situation, as long as its someone elses’ money they are using to fix the problem.

belad on December 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Even when abortion is medically recommended it may not be necessary. My children are living proof of that.

canditaylor68 on December 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Excellent post.

ConservativeTony on December 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Thanks California for continually voting this despicable POS into the Senate. Your liberal chickens are coming home to roost and soon you’ll be bankrupt. Please stop sending Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein to Washington to bankrupt the rest of us.

orlandocajun on December 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM

RE: Herb

I don’t know about the rest of you guys but I am sure thankful my Mom was “morally incorrect” and gave birth to me.

One of my five brothers always sent my Mom flowers – on his birthday. :-)

Logic on December 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM

If all these progressives are so concerned about the multitude of “poor” women who need abortions but can’t afford them, why don’t they form a charity for it and contribute their own money?

Logic on December 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Better yet, why don’t they save up their wine bottle corks and donate them to those “poor” women?

orlandocajun on December 9, 2009 at 4:16 PM

I have the constitutional right to free speech and the press aren’t I entitled to the government paying me hundreds of millions of dollars so I can own and operate a TV and Radio station? It’s a moral imperative.

eaglewingz08 on December 9, 2009 at 4:16 PM

upinak on December 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Wow, I had forgotten that the fetus is usually dead before surgery even takes place.

Holger on December 9, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Don’t blame all of California for the two hag Senators. I have never voted for a Democrat in all the years I could vote, and I have lived here 55 years. We are just out numbered here.

sandee on December 9, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Feinstein responded: “Please. We pay for a lot of things that we may or may not agree with, and taxpayers pay for it, for those things, as well.”

Hey, don’t my tax dollars pay for Sen. Feinstein’s salary/medical plan? Because that would be a perfect example. I understand that people pay are now saddled with paying taxes on things they don’t agree with, from the war on terror to welfare. But presently, nothing that my tax dollars go to directly pay for a woman to get a dremel and a vacuum cleaner with a very thin nozzle shoved into her uterus. There’s not agreeing with a particular policy of the government, and then there’s this. I disagreed with the automotive bailouts, for example. I found them to be against my opinion of economics. But I did not find it murderous or morally reprehensible.

Sgt Steve on December 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM

I’m pretty sure I’m “subsidizing the personal choice of an individual” who decides to join our 100% volunteer armed forces.

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Babies do not choose to die.

A person (i.e. was not aborted) who volunteers to serve is bravely protecting your right to be ignorant.

No one expects you to understand the difference.

rukiddingme on December 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM

upinak on December 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM

Not to split hairs but until the tube bursts you aren’t really bleeding to death.

katiejane on December 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM

rukiddingme on December 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Thanx for not addressing my argument.

Next….

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Ob Gyn here
Ectopics are not normal pregnancies and once in a million (abdominal ectopic – very very dangerous to mother) will they result in a term pregnancy, ectopics are always terminated either medically or surgically. No OB thinks of it as an abortion.
Also, I have never done an elective abortion, but I have terminated a
pregnancy for maternal medical indications from acute leukemia to lupus cerebritis and nephritis. It’s life It happens.

Marcus on December 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM

When you have been aborted, then you have an argument to be addressed.

rukiddingme on December 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Rope, trees, some assembly required.

gdonovan on December 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM

I’m pretty sure I’m “subsidizing the personal choice of an individual” who decides to join our 100% volunteer armed forces.

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM

I’m pretty sure you are subsidizing the defense of your personal sovereignty and liberty…which is much cheaper than taking to arms yourself…

mikeymike on December 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM

I would find it morally correct to exterminate her because she is too old.

ms on December 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Not to split hairs but until the tube bursts you aren’t really bleeding to death.

katiejane on December 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM

You can actually due to tears in the tube as well. Many people forget that some people don’t “burst” but tear open.

My Best Friend had one. it was painful to watch her wrath around and find out the baby had died as she was trying for years to get pregnant.

upinak on December 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Eclampsia/pre-elampsia is mostly very successfully medically managed. With the proper care most of these pregnancies are brought to viability without harm to the mother or the baby.

Go read Anita’s story in the Green Room last week if you want to see what Government run Healthcare for preelampsia will be like for everyone.

batterup on December 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM

mikeymike on December 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM

That’s very true. Be careful where your logic takes you though. It’d be much cheaper for a child to be aborted than for all the social services it will more than likely employ. Considering our adoption system is bursting at the seems and the multitude of teenagers that become expelled from homes at adult hood, cost/benefit analysis is not the path to tread.

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM

If Democrats were honest when they say they want to reduce abortions, making people pay for them themselves is a real good start.

Connie on December 9, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Also, I have never done an elective abortion, but I have terminated a
pregnancy for maternal medical indications from acute leukemia to lupus cerebritis and nephritis. It’s life It happens.

Marcus on December 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM

–It’s not clear to me that the Stupak amendment would allow two of those abortions to be provided in any private plan or any employer plan that received federal dollars or subsidies. Lupus cerebritis doesn’t seem to be life-threatening and neither does nephritis.

Jimbo3 on December 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Individual insurance policies in my state do not automatically cover maternity care. Instead if you buy a high deductible insurance policy you purchase a rider that covers maternity care. The same could be done for abortion coverage. As long as Congress allows insurance companies to require a pregnancy test before the coverage goes into effect it will cost only a couple of dollars per month.

agmartin on December 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Maybe China wants to buy California.

Bishop on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

I’m afraid China will back out of that deal as soon as they discover it includes the care and feeding of Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstein. Unless they decide to just provide them with some raw fish and a litter box.

Yoop on December 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Jimbo3 on December 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Good to see you. You have not posted in awhile. Get that fire going it is going to be cold in DFW tonight.

rukiddingme on December 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM

If there is one constant in the abortion discussion it is that liberal white women will tell you in private that they believe abortion is an anti-crime measure . You know the rest .

borntoraisehogs on December 9, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Jimbo, lupus nephritis and cerebritis during pregnancy can be lethal. Ive seen it too many times and I mean a full term mother dropping dead.

Marcus on December 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM

It’s only other people’s money. Feinstein’s always been your basic spend spend spend liberal. So much that when she was mayor of San Francisco, in two terms she virtually bankrupted the city by giving away an enormous surplus, forcing the city’s bond rating to collapse. THEN, of course, the idiots that vote in that city sent her to Washington to be their senator. Incompetence, thy name is Feinstein. AND Boxer. Birds of a feather.

bradley11 on December 9, 2009 at 4:49 PM

I’m pretty sure I’m “subsidizing the personal choice of an individual” who decides to join our 100% volunteer armed forces.

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Unlike abortion, I think this part IS actually written in the constitution!

Goody2Shoes on December 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM

I’ll never figure out how Feinstein or Boxer were ever elected in my home state.
I can say I’ve never had a friend admit to voting for either.

She is foreign to me. She does not represent me, or mine.

Pelosi? Her idiot ideology fits San Francisco so I can see how she was voted into Congress but the two Senators, their election is a mystery.

Truth is I will move from this POS state as soon as my HS junior graduates.

FireBlogger on December 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Whether there are or are not situations where a pregnancy could pose a risk to a mother’s health or life is not the issue that makes opinions that of Feinstein so reprehensable. The part that disgusts the American people and will should be their undoing is that they feel those situations are equivilant to those where a woman simply chooses to kill an unborn baby out of preference.

RachDubya on December 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM

In this day and age I’ve never heard of a pregnancy being so dangerous to the mother that it required killing the baby. Is there something I’m missing?

darwin on December 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM

My son’s six grade teacher found out she was pregnant. When they did the ultrasound just before 20 weeks they found all her female organs filled with a life threatning cancer. They had to take the baby but they didn’t abort the baby by sucking it out she had surgery and they removed the baby that way. They just didn’t dispose of the baby either they actually had a funeral and burial. She is no longer able to have children anymore but is blessed with one. It was hard on her to make that decision. With a small child and husband at home there was no other choice. When the took they baby they had to remove all of her female organs. THen she still had to do chemo after that. It does happen. If she could of had the baby and fight the cancer she would have. They do not call what she had done an abortion, even if it technicallly is.

Brat4life on December 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Goody2Shoes on December 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Which is irrelevant because Ed’s argument never mentions the Constitution. He acts as if we never ever “subsidize the personal choice of individuals” when our tax dollars pay for them every day.

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 4:52 PM

So, by her reasoning, would it be morally correct to smack her in the face with a shovel?
Ooh, sorry…too late.

SKYFOX on December 9, 2009 at 4:54 PM

tax dollars go to a lot of things that taxpayers may find objectionable, whether that’s the war in Afghanistan to studies on the effect of alcohol on young adults. However, this is also a non-sequitur in that people may find some public policy objectionable, but that’s not the same thing as subsidizing the personal choices of individuals.

The govt subsidizes personal choices all the time.

Buy a house, get a tax deduction. That’s a personal decision that every tax payer pays, including renters. The person buying the house makes a personal decision and the govt rewards that decision with a lower tax bill.

On welfare and decide to have that 5th kid with a 5th daddy? No worries, Uncle Sam will increase the welfare check. Personal decision to have a kid = more govt money.

How’s that any different from having the govt pay for the personal decision of having an abortion?

There are 1000 reasons to oppose ObamaCare…this line of argument will get you nowehere.

angryed on December 9, 2009 at 4:59 PM

angryed on December 9, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Generally speaking, THIS!

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM

No tax dollars for baby killers

bluegrass on December 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM

That’s very true. Be careful where your logic takes you though. It’d be much cheaper for a child to be aborted than for all the social services it will more than likely employ. Considering our adoption system is bursting at the seems and the multitude of teenagers that become expelled from homes at adult hood, cost/benefit analysis is not the path to tread.

The Calibur on December 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM

You should consider your logic as well. Automatically assuming the child will be a detriment to society, before it is even born, is a flawed view of the miracle of life. Life is sacred, and should be treated as such, for without it nothing else matters.

Further, the logic that aborting babies is better for the financial benefit of society is a slippery slope for other more “objectionable practices.” For instance, would it be cheaper to visit hospitals with death squads and shoot anyone that is sick or injured and using public funds to pay for their health care? Now there can and should be debate on the government’s role in health care, but the willing taking of innocent life should never be put on the table…ever.

mikeymike on December 9, 2009 at 5:03 PM

I think the reality is that whatever the final bill includes, if some welfare queen wants an abortion, she will get it and we, the taxpayers, will end up paying for it. Personally I would rather pay for her abortion than support her kid for the next 25 years or so.

Ann on December 9, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Personally I would rather pay for her abortion than support her kid for the next 25 years or so.

Ann on December 9, 2009 at 5:05 PM

DING DING DING DING!!

And it’s more like the next 75 years since the welfare queen’s kid is almost guaranteed to be on welfare him/her self.

angryed on December 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2